a) why didn't they rot?b) why has no carbon dating been done on them?c) weren't chariots brought in during the second intermediate period? thus disprooving previous theories about the exodus being in the Middle or Old Kingdoms.

Placing the Exodus at a time when Egypt had Chariots and the area around Pi-Ramsses was important and before Merenptah puts the "exodus" firmly in the reign of Ramsses II doesn't it? That is assuming that these chariot wheels are from the exodus armies of Pharaoh. Which I am afraid I quite doubt (only as I don't believe in the parting of the Red Sea by Moses etc).

The Exodus was at a time when Egypt had chariots. I'll quote Exodus 23 -28 : "And the Egyptians pursued and went after them into the midst of the sea, all the Pharoahs horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and he troubled the army of the Egyptians. And he took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty" That mentions the fact that there was chariots and even states that God took off the chariot wheels!

The Exodus was at a time when Egypt had chariots. I'll quote Exodus 23 -28 : "And the Egyptians pursued and went after them into the midst of the sea, all the Pharoahs horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and he troubled the army of the Egyptians. And he took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty" That mentions the fact that there was chariots and even states that God took off the chariot wheels!

i quote Genesis 24:45-46 "Before i finished praying in my heart, Rebekah came out, with her jar on her shoulder. She went down to the spring and drew water, and i said to her, 'Please give me a drink.' She quickly lowered her jar from her shoulder and said, 'Drink, and i'll water your camels too."

So PharoahKel, i am going to have to ask you the same questions. How can there be camels before chariots in the Bible. When camels were not domesticated until or after 1000 BCE? If the word camels is a redacted word, why can't chariots be? Futhermore, how can you prove chariots isn't a redacted word?

Here are some sites that discuss camel domestication. There are far more. There appears to be a small amount of evidence that suggests that camels may have been domesticated earlier than believed. It is very small, and while it appears most zoological groups have little problem in accepting a far earlier date for domestication, archaeologists continue to have problems with it. Here because the preponderance of evidence does not suggest a far earlier date for Abraham than most accept. i will continue to agree with those archaeologists that discount the Biblical account of Abraham with camels. If the proof was greater that camels were being used earlier than 1000 BCE i would not. But the proof as the above sites provide isn't very much.

The first one is a christian site, that discusses the historical belief of archaeologists for a late date for the domestication of the camel. While offering rebutals and listing the proof for an early date.

The second site is an early discussion on the matter and presents why camel domestication is late.

The third site is interesting because it offers pictures of some of the "proofs" and buried down in the article is the sites' belief that camels are a late date domesticated animal. It also offers reasonable answers to why some of the "proofs" aren't really proofs at all.

Anyway, i do hope you all will enjoy the sites and think! i did this because i do try to be fair and have no desire to force anyone to think 'my way'. Even if my way is better My questions remain to be answered, thank you.

Sorry, I was away for the weekend. I never said Camels came before chariots. And whos to say they didnt have camels and chariots at the same time? Are you saying you dont think there was chariots during the Exodus?

Sorry, I was away for the weekend. I never said Camels came before chariots. And whos to say they didnt have camels and chariots at the same time? Are you saying you dont think there was chariots during the Exodus?

Hey PharoahKel, welcome back!

You didn't say that camels came before chariots, the Bible says it. If one is going to insist that Egypt had to have chariorts, at the Exodus because scripture says so. Then that one must also agree that camels had to exist in Abraham's time because scripture says so.

Most archaeologists don't find the needed proofs that camels existed prior to 1000 BCE as a domesticated animal. Non archaeologists don't require the same degree of proof therefore they are freer in claiming otherwise. But they are unable to prove it, really anymore than archaeologists can disprove it.

Acutally, i do lean towards the position that chariots like camels are redacted terms dating to the Babylonian Exile. This is not to say that camels and chariots did not exist earlier. Even as early as i put the Exodus (end of the 6th dynasty) it is just the proofs are lacking to prove it. There is one reasonable explanation as to why the "proofs" of their existance is lacking. This being both camels, chariots, and even horses would place the head of the rider above that of the head of the King. But, when i consider other obvious redacted verses from scripture, the lack of any substancial proof of camels, or chariots i just lump them into that group that is of redacted words.

Another such redacted verse PharoahKel is Genesis 15: 7. The use of the term Chaldeans indicates that it is a redacted verse. Why? Because the Chaldeans didn't exist until after 878 BCE. While Ur, is a dead city by 1700 BCE. Ur was never held by the Chaldeans.

In my opinion, using Biblical quotations to "prove" a point on any subject can be very risky.
Even if one believes that the Bible is the word of God and therefore MUST be correct, one has to remember that the Bible has been written out by man--and man makes mistakes! Some monk, somewhere, laboriously copying a section of the Bible by hand, in a dark cell, may have mis-read some sentence and copied his belief--an error--into a new version that is copied, mistake and all, by some other monk later.
And let's face it--the Bible, at least the Old Testement, is a history of the Hebrew nation, and as such tells us the stories in the Bible from the Hebrew/Jewish view. Although many of the sites, for example, quoted in the Bible have been archaeologically found, many have not.
As an example, although it is not mentioned in the Bible (I don't think!), Masada existed. The remains of the city are a national treasure in Israel today, used as an example of Jewish pride and determination in the face of adversity. But the legend of an entire population committing suicide rather than accept Roman rule is just not shown by any excavation. There are no masses of graves containing men, women and children. Did it happen? Most assuredly--there are physical remains of both the city and the Roman garrison. Did it happen on the scale we are told? Probably not.
Same applies with the Bible.

In my opinion, using Biblical quotations to "prove" a point on any subject can be very risky.Even if one believes that the Bible is the word of God and therefore MUST be correct, one has to remember that the Bible has been written out by man--and man makes mistakes! Some monk, somewhere, laboriously copying a section of the Bible by hand, in a dark cell, may have mis-read some sentence and copied his belief--an error--into a new version that is copied, mistake and all, by some other monk later.And let's face it--the Bible, at least the Old Testement, is a history of the Hebrew nation, and as such tells us the stories in the Bible from the Hebrew/Jewish view. Although many of the sites, for example, quoted in the Bible have been archaeologically found, many have not. As an example, although it is not mentioned in the Bible (I don't think!), Masada existed. The remains of the city are a national treasure in Israel today, used as an example of Jewish pride and determination in the face of adversity. But the legend of an entire population committing suicide rather than accept Roman rule is just not shown by any excavation. There are no masses of graves containing men, women and children. Did it happen? Most assuredly--there are physical remains of both the city and the Roman garrison. Did it happen on the scale we are told? Probably not. Same applies with the Bible.

You're right on a couple of points Osiris II and thanks for the comments.
However, when you mention that some sites mentioned in the Bible have not been found could be related to looking for the entire history in the wrong time period.

i as visiting elsewhere this evening and found the most interesting site. It does pertain to our postings here about camels. So i thought i would bring here for further consideration.

Quote:

FROM DOMESTICATION TO SELECTIVE BREEDING

The human-rabbit association can be traced back to the biblical era, as exemplified by passages in the books Leviticus (Lev. 11:5) and Deuteronomy (De. 14:7), which make reference to saphan, the Hebrew word for rabbit. Phoenicians seafarers discovered rabbits on the Iberian Peninsula around 1100 BC and, thinking that these were Hyraxes (also called Rock Dassies), called the land "i-shepan-im" (land of the Hyraxes). Since the Iberian Peninsula is north of Africa, relative geographic position suggests that another Punic derivation comes from sphan, "north". As the Romans adapted "i-shepan-im" to Latin, the word Hispania was created -- one of the etymological origins of Spain. In his book III the Roman geographer Strabo (ca. 64 BC - AD 21) called Spain "the land of rabbits". Later on, the Roman emperor Servius Sulpicius Galba (5 BC - AD 69), whose reign was short-lived (68-69 AD), issued a coin on which Spain is represented with a rabbit at her feet. Although semi-domestication started in the Roman period, in this initial phase rabbits were kept in large walled pens and were allowed to breed freely.

Humans started to play a direct role in the evolution of the rabbit from the sixth to the tenth centuries AD, when monks in southern France domesticated and bred rabbits under more restricted conditions [5]. Originally from the region comprised by southwestern Europe and North Africa, the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is the ancestor of all domestic breeds. Since the sixth century, because of its sociable nature the rabbit increasingly has become integrated into human families as a domestic companion. Such human-induced selective breeding created the morphological diversity found in rabbits today. The first records describing a variety of fur colors and sizes distinct from wild breeds date from the sixteenth century. It was not until the eighteenth century that selective breeding resulted in the Angora rabbit, which has a uniquely thick and beautiful wool coat. The process of domestication carried out since the sixth century, coupled with ever increasing worldwide migration and trade, resulted in many new breeds and in the introduction of rabbits into new environments different from their place of origin. While there are well over 100 known breeds of rabbit around the world, "recognized" pedigree breeds vary from one country to another. For example, the American Rabbit Breeders Association (ARBA) "recognizes" 45 breeds in the U.S.A., with more under development.

From the above website also Titled The GFP Bunny, which stands for Green Fluorescent Protein. It is a story about a manmade fluorescent bunny named Alba, it has a picture of the green fluorescent bunny Alba.

What i find pertinent about this information on bunnies is that even through bunnies are far less dangerous than camels it wasn't until 69A.D. That bunnies were even considered to domesticable and by the Romans, at that! LOL oh that is funny if you think about it! LOL

I wouldn't speak so definately about it to be honest. I am really undecided about the exodus to be honest. I believe that something must have happened but the account in the Bible does not tie in with the knowledge of Ancient Egypt that we have today. Workers were well kept generally, were freer than the Bible gives account to and there is little evidence for any such infanticide at all. I am really undecided so dont argue with me on this one!

1. If the Exodus would have occured during the reign of Ramese II when the Jews finally reached the promised land what would they have found waiting for them....more Egyptian troops. We know Egypt occupied the area on an almost continous basis from the time of Thutmose III entil around 1150.

2. Many would want you to believe that 600,000 Jews wandered around in the wilderness and left not a single trace, not even as much as a single campsite.38 of those 40 years were reputed to be at one place and yet there is not a trace that they were there.

3. Some want to put the Exodus earlier...around 2000BC. Our first mention of Isreal as a nation is the merenapth stelle in around 1207 BC. They would have you believe that isreal existed for several hundred years with no trace at all. Not a single mention of their name.

You guy's realize don't you that you are posting the same topic under Queen's of Egypt and Pharoah's. Since we all know that I lay claim to being both than I share it with you in both place's ... here and there.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Since we argue so much about what is truth here biblically speaking and in doing so in reference to Ancient Egypt I knew the truth had to lie somewhere. Give this a good read as it lead's from one and into the other like a free flow; including the topic of the Exodus.
Hope you enjoy the sharing and the caring.
Cheer's,
Bel

1. If the Exodus would have occured during the reign of Ramese II when the Jews finally reached the promised land what would they have found waiting for them....more Egyptian troops. We know Egypt occupied the area on an almost continous basis from the time of Thutmose III entil around 1150.

2. Many would want you to believe that 600,000 Jews wandered around in the wilderness and left not a single trace, not even as much as a single campsite.38 of those 40 years were reputed to be at one place and yet there is not a trace that they were there.

3. Some want to put the Exodus earlier...around 2000BC. Our first mention of Isreal as a nation is the merenapth stelle in around 1207 BC. They would have you believe that isreal existed for several hundred years with no trace at all. Not a single mention of their name.

Some good points Horemheb. Especially number one.

As for number two http://www.angelfire.com/journal/biblei ... gchart.htm Is a site that offers a graph of Biblical sites relating to the Exodus. You are referring to Kadesh-Barnea i do believe. Below is data regarding Kadesh-Barnea, Please note that the only period that isn't listed it the MBI period approx. 2000 BCE i wonder why?
Kadesh-Barnea Deut. 1:19-46 Most of the 40 years in the desert were here? EB2 sites nearby. No EB3 occupation. No MB2 occupation at any possible sites for Kadesh-Barnea. No LB remains at any Kadesh-Barnea sites. Fortresses at Ain Qudeirat and Ain Qedeis only at the end of IA1.

Then there is the alternative theory and that is what modern folks think is Kadesh-Barnea isn't.

As for number three. If you read the Biblical book of Samuel, you will see where it is Pharaoh that is ruler over the tribal people of what would become Israel during the United and Divided Monarchy Period. (1st Samuel 9) The Pharaoh's of the 12th dynasty made sure that Canaan understood that Egypt was overlord of this area, even as Asiatics were taking control of it.

So for those of us that accept an early date for Exodus it isn't so surprising that it isn't until the reign of Merenptah that we first find Israel being mentioned. If you read the bible you can see that prior to Shishak's sacking of Jerusalem, Pharaoh was interferring with Israelite rule. Jeroboam a servant of Solomon's finds protection from Solomon in Egypt.

Not strange at all Horemheb, when you consider that prior to the United and Divided Monarchy the Hebrews of Canaan are called in the Bible, the sons of Israel, the men of Judah, Benjamin, Simion, etc. While closer to the Monarchy periods it is the tribal names that dot the Bible.

I have a great world history teacher and he was talking about this subject the other day in class and he proposed that the pharoah in exodus was the son of Ramses II, but he said he would go into more detail later as we go in class, so i will be sure to update what he says when the time comes!

Im doing a double major in ancient history, and we were taught that Rameses II was the Pharaoh during Exodus, although you all have convincing arguements for other Pharaohs... but then again there is always an element of doubt in history

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum